Published on 19 July 2021
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 31606/19 and 11840/20
N.W. against Iceland
and N.W. against Iceland
lodged on 5 June 2019 and 17 February 2020 respectively
communicated on 29 June 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the applicant’s trial and conviction for serious assault against her ex-husband, and criminal charges which she pressed against him for domestic violence.
The former application concerns the applicant’s criminal trial. She was charged and convicted by the District Court of a serious assault against her ex-husband, to whom she was married at the time of events, as well as of a minor assault against another woman. By a judgment of 7 December 2018, the Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction. The applicant pleaded self-defence at both judicial instances, claiming that her ex-husband had submitted her to violence on several occasions during the course of their relationship and that on the night in question, he and the other woman had attacked her. The applicant applied for leave to appeal her conviction to the Supreme Court, but was denied.
The latter application concerns charges which the applicant pressed against her ex-husband in 2017 for several incidences of alleged domestic violence in Iceland and the United Kingdom in 2016 and 2017. The police notified the applicant in April 2019 that the investigation had been terminated. The Director of Public Prosecutions upheld the decision in August 2019 on the grounds that Iceland lacked criminal jurisdiction over part of the charges in question and that the remaining charges were not likely to lead to a conviction.
The applicant complains, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, that the authorities failed to properly consider her allegations of repeated domestic violence at the hands of her ex-husband when investigating the two cases; that this broader context was insufficiently taken into account when assessing her plea of self-defence; that authorities disregarded certain evidence and that they gave insufficient reasoning for their decision not to prosecute.
The applicant furthermore complains under Article 14 of the Convention, in connection with the above complaints, that she was discriminated against in the treatment of her case on the basis of her gender and her foreign nationality.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the positive obligations of States inherent in Articles 3 and 8 § 1 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation and prosecution of acts of sexual assault and domestic violence, were the investigations in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of the above-mentioned Articles (see, inter alia, M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 148-53, 4 December 2003, and E.B. v. Romania, no. 49089/10, §§ 53-56, 19 March 2019)?
3. Has the applicant suffered gender-based discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, §§ 184-91, ECHR 2009, and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 109-14, 9 July 2019)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy